While counties have traditionally handled local social service programs, Davis in recent years has worked on its own to respond to local concerns about the need for homeless services. Starting in March 2017, the council formally adopted a “Housing First approach” by “committing to a methodology of practices rooted in evidence that everyone needs a permanent home to successfully address mental health conditions, substance use disorders, or other issues that contribute to becoming or remaining unhoused.”
By approving a Scoial Services Strategic Plan, the city developed three overarching goals: maximizing results of DavisPathways; expanding capacity; and reducing panhandling.
DavisPathways consists of the following four components:
- Police Services Specialist Supervisor – Homeless Outreach & Services
- Pathways to Employment
- New Pathways
- Getting to Zero Vouchers and Case Management
The city analyzes each step and determines: How much did we do? How well did we do it? Is anyone better off?
Ryan Collins – Police Services Specialist
In August 2017, the city hired Ryan Collins as a Police Services Specialist Supervisor to help coordinate homeless outreach and services. Since then he has responded to 514 calls for service and helped 203 individuals “in the course of emergency responses and proactive outreach.”
Staff reports that “125 of 203 (62%) of individuals contacted engaged in personalized services to improve their physical health, mental health, social supports, income, and/or housing.”
They were able to find 75 of those 125 participants permanent housing.
Staff notes that, to date, Ryan Collins’ services have been funded through police department funding. However, “in December 2018, the City secured a $173,834 California Emergency Solutions and Housing (CESH) grant to establish a flexible fund administered by the Police Department. The fund will offer operational support for emergency housing interventions and housing stabilization services.”
Pathways to Employment
Since April 2017, Pathways to Employment has operated under contract by Davis Community Meals. Staff reports that “the program employs up to five unhoused individuals to work approximately 12 hours per week.”
They have created jobs that include things like landscape maintenance and beautifying downtown.
The participants earn an hourly wage and also receive assistance completing job training programs and finding permanent employment.
The program has an annual operating budget of $64,500 for which the City originally secured a Sutter Health grant.
To date, the program has served 22 individuals who have been homeless and average of 5 years and in Davis for at least 14 years. The average age is 42 years old and 19 of the 22 participants are male.
Nineteen out of 22 remained enrolled or successfully completed the program. They found that 12 of those 19 obtained employment since the program began and all 19 reported increased skill and confidence levels.
Of those who dropped out, most did so for personal reasons unrelated to the program. For example, the staff reports, “one person relocated to the Bay Area and another person stopped due to a scheduling conflict after enrolling in substance use disorder treatment.”
However, staff notes that “some individuals are in such poor health that they are incapable of performing many tasks. To address this, staff is trying to vary the training opportunities to include other experiences that do not rely on physical labor.”
New Pathways
New Pathways is a short-term supportive housing project located at 512 Fifth Street in a city-owned house. Operated under contract by Davis Community Meals since February 2016, “the program offers up to four unhoused individuals short-term housing, supportive services, and housing navigation assistance.”
The current operating budget is $130,401 with the City and Yolo County each contribute $65,200.50.
To date, 26 individuals have been served. Of the 8 who exited to permanent housing, 161 days is the average # of days it took for participants to find permanent housing. 13 of the 26 (50%) remain enrolled or successfully completed the program since the program began.
Eight of the 13 obtained permanent housing since the program began and they remain stably housed.
The biggest obstacles “to moving participants into permanent housing are a lack of subsidized housing as well as an unwillingness of landlords to accept less than market rate.”
Getting to Zero Vouchers and Case Management
Operated by Yolo Housing and funded by Sutter Health since July 2017, the Getting to Zero program provides “grant-funded vouchers to up to 15 unhoused individuals who are seeking permanent housing.”
These vouchers provide an interim housing subsidy to those who qualify for the federal subsidized housing program, Housing Choice Vouchers, but remain on the waitlist.
Staff writes, “Serving as bridge assistance until the recipients can seamlessly transition onto the permanent Housing Choice Vouchers, the temporary Getting to Zero vouchers play a vital role in addressing the backlogged waitlist and housing people more quickly.”
The participants numbers are 15 total – one transitioned directly to housing without a voucher, 4 transitioned to subsidized housing managed by Yolo Housing, 1 received a Project-Based Voucher, 5 received Getting to Zero Vouchers and transitioned to a Housing Choice Voucher and 10 received case management.
Of those in case management: “10 of the 10 (100%) remain actively engaged with a case manager—the one participant who transitioned straight to market rate housing opted not to receive case management.”
Currently: Five of the 15 (33%) available GTZ voucher slots are in use and 11 of 11 remain stably housed.
Staff notes that the case management has achieved a perfect record of success to date, with 21 of the permanently housed individuals remaining stably housed and no incidents of psychiatric hospitalization or involvement in the criminal justice system.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
First, I want to applaud every single person involved in these efforts navigating through a plethora of organizations both private and governmental, working with individuals one on one and in groups, to help individuals who have fallen off our societies defined paths to success. Your efforts are much appreciated.
However, I cannot help but note that inefficiencies caused by our society’s stubborn refusal to admit that a more efficient, & ultimately less costly means to help would be to develop a taxpayer-supported comprehensive system rather than the patchwork of volunteerism, officials, grants and charity that is currently we currently use.
I will add that to encourage folk to give their time, talent, and treasure, VOLUNTARILY to help the homeless, the poor, others, is a noble effort… it is the REQUIREMENT piece that disturbs me.
I don’t want the government to tell you how to feel, how to act, and I strongly resist government (or, actually, anyone but me) telling me how to feel, how to act.
What is the current inefficiency?
Merci beaucoup.
Disagree. While we have voluntarily chosen to give, of time, talents, and treasures to this effort, the second you tell me that it is required, and the government will require that from me, I lose interest, and I spurn it.
I’m funny that way…
The 8:35 post was meant as a reply to Tia’s 8:19 post… dumb-thumbed.
I know how you feel, Bill. It really chafes my hide with all the stop signs, red lights, speed limits and then the insistence on charging us for paved roads. A good 4X4 is all we need. Government overreach telling me how to behave…
Not what I was referring to at all. If you were being sarcastic, please seek help… seriously.
If folk want to force/require other folk to behave or contribute in a charitable/socially responsible/spiritual manner, I believe that is wrong. Else, let me posit what all I think/believe you should be required to do… time, talent (if any), and treasure.
Equating that with what I was posting about is… well, somewhat
insaneoff-point. What you cite are rules of common sense, logical practical (you use the roads, you should contribute to maintenance) responsibility. If you cannot see the difference, it is ‘beyond my pay grade’ to assist you with that.Oh, I must have misunderstood. I thought Tia was saying that it was common sense to have an integrated approach (government) that would be more effective in solving a social problem that affects all of us as private citizens as well as the business community. Sort of like planning and constructing paved highway that benefits all of us or a government coordinated social security system to even out the economic impacts on elderly when they no longer work or the government run fire services shared by taxpayers. You’re right, I definitely need to seek some kind of help. Know of a good public mental health agency I could use?
No.
I’ll trust Tia to tell me if she wants to respond to my post responding to hers. We often don’t agree, but I respect HER.
If you’d like help in being sarcastic, I can help (and I’m being sarcastic).
“the second you tell me that it is required, and the government will require that from me, I lose interest, and I spurn it.”
Do you spurn the protection of the military? The police? The fire department? Or do you see it as appropriate for your tax money to be spent on maintaining these services? How do you feel about taxpayer maintained education, infrastructure?
David, what is the current status of the Paul’s Place project for 1111 H Street? Is there a reason that Staff and Council are ignoring the effort to provide permanent Homeless infrastructure there?
I met with Bill Pride a month or so ago, they are still working on getting the funding together and have not come forward with a formal proposal as of yet. It’s coming, but that’s probably why there is no mention of it in this report.
“they are still working on getting the funding together and have not come forward with a formal proposal as of yet. “
This is just one example of why not having a systemic approach but relying on what can be cobbled together presents an inefficiency in doing even those programs that are largely agreed upon within the community.
I don’t know if you are correct, but when I read this, what I see is the underlying rigid system of writing a formal proposal and getting grant. If they had just done a kickstart or crowd sourcing it might save a lot of time to just have people voluntarily donate according to whatever amount of information they need to be convinced.
Consider this:
Suppose you propose a tax of a $100 per person per year to fund such project, and we know that 80% of the population would have supported it. Then it reasons that if we simply skip the debates and voting, and systemic bureaucracy (and its corresponding wastes), the project would have secured 80% of the fund it would need on the next day.
Edgar…
YES! [great comment]
You strike me as an analytical person. Let’s say they needed $1 mm to do it, and we assessed folk $17/man-woman-child in Davis to do that (based on an assumption of 60,000 folk)… if only half (not even 50% + 1, much less 80%) willingly supported it, and did it on their own, that’d be $34. Our largest size household was 5… that’s be $170… one time, or on-going… would my family (now 3) support it @ $1200/year? Yes!
The point is, we value the service to a portion of the community. But would we be willing to impose $170 year on every household? Hell NO! Would I feel the same as to what we would commit to if someone told us we had to? No…
Your idea of,
… has a lot of merit… hoping they explore that!
Have a great evening and week, Edgar…
I wholeheartedly agree with the first part of Tia’s comment, and I believe in those words she describes a deficit in community leadership. It is my understanding, and that understanding could be wrong, that the funding amount that David refers to in his 9:35am comment is $400,000. That is less than $10 per person. $10 to create a permanent and robust solution to a substantial portion of Davis’ homeless challenges.
Unfortunately, I believe the root of that absence of leadership is in large part because the second half of Tia’s comment is incorrect. If “those programs […] are largely agreed upon within the community” then there would exist an unambiguous political will that our elected political leaders would be hearing loud and clear … and acting on.
However, it is unfair to blame our elected leaders. If the agreement Tia describes did/does exist then we would individually and collectively be galvanized into the action(s) necessary to quickly translate agreement into $400,000 of fiscal action.
How much is it worth to us to see Paul’s Place become a reality? How much is it worth to us to make real headway in addressing our homeless challenges? I could be wrong, but I suspect the new traffic signals recently erected on Mace Boulevard cost more than $400,000.
I know what I am going to do tomorrow. I’m going to find Bill Pride and give him a check that covers the donations of 10 Davis residents … because I know that sparing $10 is hard for some of the people who live here in Davis. I challenge each of us to similarly reach out to Bill Pride, and prove Tia’s words correct … that “those programs [truly] are largely agreed upon within the community.”
If we do that, then The Vanguard really will have a worthwhile story to tell about Paul’s Place.
Is that a thing?
Not sure I understand your rant here as Tia didn’t propose to require that anyone volunteer. Did you mean that taxation to create services made it a ‘requirement’ since taxes are not a choice?
Yep.
Then, Bill, are you against all taxation and all coercive powers that we confer on government? Because there are people who disagree with every single government program that exists. Are you in favor of an opt out policy for taxpayers, a sort of individual taxpayer line item veto power?
Nope. [although, re-apportioning existing revenue to various purposes is OK by me]
Bad rhetorical device, BTW. [your loaded questions]
Like, “yes or no, have you stopped beating your spouse yet?”.
A bit childish/manipulative, and reminiscent of some previous “anon” posts by others…
This question is fundamental and it could go both ways. I think the short answer is that if people are good, things get done. If people are bad, people get scammed and hurt. These happen regardless whether there is government of tax. So the underlying questions might be, “How do bad people become good? Does that happen? What is a good person? Who decides that?”
In a voluntary system, people are free to decide for themselves who they trust and want to help or be helped by. The government could potentially certify the voluntary helper as a good person without forbidding the person needing help from receiving help by anyone.
I think:
One thing that is different between road repair and helping the homeless is that a deteriorating road is in open public view. The process of how a person who suddenly, or over time, becomes homeless is typically not in public view. If a government program is used to help those people, we run into an accountability problem where people might want to know exactly who and why someone received help or someone is denied help. The cost of paperwork, approval, confidentiality, accountability, and auditing are all wastes that a voluntary system does not need to have. So I think a voluntary system is the cheapest way to get things done. What could help might just be a communication system for the volunteers to coordinate their resources, share what they learned and train new volunteers.
Your neighbor became homeless. They move in to your house. Done.
Edgar…
I don’t disagree in spirit… another question that I’d, in the context of the other comments, is, “how is it that ‘good’ people get into ‘bad’ situations?”… am thinking prevention/early intervention will be more cost efficient and humane, than waiting for things to go ‘bad’. And then dealing with that…
A good number of homeless folk I’ve gotten to know, had good jobs, houses, families… perfectly fine, productive citizens… something happened… then that resulted in something else… think of a line of dominoes… if we focused on removing a couple of the dominoes (by prevention/early intervention) in addition to dealing with the fallen dominoes, we really might find either significant mitigation or maybe a ‘solution’… your line,
is “spot on”… your example could well prevent the next domino from falling. Early intervention… not a big “cost”… easier to remove one domino than trying to reset all of them. What you describe is ‘caring’, and/or ‘caritas’… money/effort spent, public or private, will be less for early action, than for end results if there is no early action/intervention.
Thank you, Edgar.
I use the example of roads with homelessness because in both cases there is an obvious problem that affects all of us in the community. The question then becomes what to do about it. Government typically does things that cannot or will not be done by private sector or profit driven businesses or because it is too large. Interstate highways are a solution to an infrastructure challenge that would never have happened without the federal government. We all agree on that. Social Security and Medicare are solutions to social problems that could not be dealt with by individual savings, relying on family, etc. Homelessness and housing are social problems that can not be solved by charities with their limited resources. There are many problems other than being without a home that cause and perpetuate homelessness. Mental illness, substance dependence, emotional traumas and even physical disability to name a few.
I can’t speak for Tia, but I think she was trying to say that trying to solve a homeless person’s plight is complicated. No one charity or even the limited city program will solve each person’s multi-factored rubic’s cube dilemma; but, that there is probably a better chance if the program was comprehensive and coordinated beyond what all our scattered individual charities and individual county treatment programs might be able to supply without the added value of coordination of all the services.
The problem of homelessness has gone far beyond helping out our neighbor who needs a place to stay for awhile. It’s not cruel or hypocritical to see homelessness in its scale and severity and logically advocate for a government coordinated solution. We have a social and moral obligation to address and solve such a large scale, destructive and growing problem.
Its cruel to rule out any solution that has proven to be too big and too complex for charitable, individual solutions by turning our backs on this very widespread public health problem.
Ryan Collins deserves all the respect, support and gratitude this community can offer. I watched him work with a person that was obviously mentally ill and paranoid in addition to being homeless. He was kind and patient beyond what any normal person would be able to tolerate. He went around and around with this person until he came up with a plan to help her that she was comfortable with trying. I was truly amazed at how long he hung in there trying to help this individual.
And that story is why it’s such a good deal for all of us to pay taxes toward the effort. Money well spent regardless of how one feels about it.
So, are you saying that folk like Ryan put in all that time and effort, and pay additional taxes as well?
Do you understand the cost/benefit/effectiveness differences between the private efforts vs. governmental efforts? You open to having taxes used to support/efforts [current/future] by private, and often ‘religious’/spiritual organizations/individuals? If the answer to the latter is “yes”, we may find common ground.
The most prevalent, cost-effective, and on-going efforts in this area are faith-based organizations… part of the reason for that is the folk doing it do so out of genuine concern, and pretty much doing it as volunteers… an infusion of taxpayer dollars would help them mightily… compare the results of Habitat for Humanity, Loaves and Fishes, St Vincent de Paul (partial list), Christian/Jewish/Islamic, etc. charities to current “government” programs. On the governmental side, the money goes in significant part to employees (salaries and benefits), administrators, and overhead… much less true in the faith-based/private sectors.
My experience is that most folk would rather just write a check (and force everyone else to do the same), than actually care… asauges their consciences, makes them feel ‘righteous’. And, sometimes, ‘smug’.
Feel free to volunteer your time, and money, either to the government, or the non-governmental folk who are the “boots on the ground”. Sincerely… we would welcome that…
Bill
“A bit childish/manipulative”
I know this comment was directed to me, however, I fear you may also think that of my response in which I was attempting to ascertain where you draw the line on taxation? I believe that most Americans do believe in taxation for some common goals. There are a few who do not and believe that taxation is theft and should not be done for any reason. I am a strong believer in governmental programs to address those problems that the private sector, charities, volunteers and socially active groups have proven ineffective in resolving. I believe that homelessness fits this criteria.
Incorrect, Tia… [your 8:59 post]
It [what you quoted from me] was directed to Dave Hart’s 6:59 post… perhaps I should have made that patently clear.
Not aimed at you at all, just the manner in which Dave H responded… not even personal against him… just his poor rhetorical approach… I have no animus towards either you, nor Dave, personally…
Am surprised, frankly (although I’m not [‘running joke, for longtime VG’s]), that you thought it was aimed at you. I’d apologize if I was guilty of that. I’m not.
Tia… followup on your 8:59 post
You asked of me,
to which I respond with the same question. You also posted (towards me, I presume, perhaps more globally),
I am not one of them. I feel no additional justification is necessary.
Yes… yet the government programs to date have even been less so… why do you believe pumping more money into those government programs will be effective? If taxpayer money was pumped into the “private sector, charities, volunteers and socially active groups”, they might well have a better chance, and at a better cost/benefit ratio. That’s my strong belief, and experience. That would mean taking ‘government revenues’ and dispersing to private/faith-based entities… you OK with that? As I said to another poster, if yes, perhaps we can find common ground.
I would be strange for Dave to say. But I am a neighbor of Dave and he is a volunteer himself. I don’t know what else he does but he takes care of our street.
Noted. Thanks again.
Thanks, Edgar, but I believe Bill reacted badly to my admittedly sarcastic comments. Above, I left a more direct comment today at 11:58 am that is longer and more closely lays out what I believe is true about the issue of homelessness. Bill’s reaction has reminded me that my shoot from the hip reaction was not helpful because while I think Bill’s position is very wrong, we don’t know each other personally and therefore argumentation needs to be more direct.
Edgar, the “good people” concept is like the “good cop” concept: They might be out there, but they’re not getting the job done. We have had solid evidence for a decade or more that the solution to homelessness is to put people in a home, where the necessary aid may be adequately and more efficiently rendered. It doe not take a Harvard economist to figure out the thousands of tiny fiefdoms created by the welfare/healthcare bureaucracies infesting and infecting city/county/state/federal governments are the pigs at the trough, costing many times more than just housing treating and feeding the homeless and chronically poor. As long as the masses buy into the “we can’t” rhetoric of the old style politicians and unfettered capitalists, the real welfare queens, the homeless will always be among us, as a political hockey puck.
I sent an email to Ryan because I am interested in the “5th” pillar of volunteers training. I live in Davis and one of the reasons I bought a house here is to provide below market rate housing. When one of my rooms open, I could take in one of those homeless persons, but I need help doing that. In particular, I need these:
a) It would be good if there is a wait list of “good characters” (including background check etc) screened by Ryan or the police, then that SAVES me time interviewing people from craigslist.
b) Because I am letting them live in lower rent or no rent at all, I need some kind of LEGAL protection to relocate or evict them if somehow the tenant would not work in my household for whatever reason (including if I determine that the person is a “real welfare queen” that John suggested). As long as I can evict them for “whatever reason” I think that part is covered.
c) If the tenant has some kind of drug use or criminal background in the past, I need some kind of understanding or LEGAL protection that the police doesn’t come busting down my door. I live there, I can open the door. Don’t kick it down.
d) I need LEGAL protection against such tenant trying to sue me. The police can come check my place. But it will be a problem if the tenant start suing me on things that never happened.
For condition (a), I think we arrived at a point of natural efficiency from cooperation (pareto efficiency). The police IS the place to do a background check. So even if a person is not “in poverty” or “homeless” if a person or family needs housing, even at fair market price, if there is a wait list certified by the police, I can just get them housed every time I have a room vacant. It will totally save me time, and I don’t need maintain their private background check, or sensitive information in my own house.
If I get more training or understanding, maybe I can accept more “high risk” people, but since I know nothing this is all I think I can do for now.
I am not shooting for a tax break, but the math is that if my room normally rents for $500, that is equivalent to donating $6000 a year by providing a room.
Edgar… having the laws changed to give you the legal protections you seek are legitimate goals of government, and I hope those are enacted. Same for either Gov’t or private competent vetting of potential tenants. Tax laws should be modified to acknowledge your ‘charitable contribution’… either deduction, or I could even support a tax credit…
More cost-effective than other proposals to house the homeless, and give them a much better chance of resolving other life-issues they have… George Will had a great piece on the odds changing for the better, big time, if they are housed… imagine it would be even greater if they were housed with ‘stable’ folk who could provide good role modelling.
Same is true for the ‘housing-insecure’ students, or other folk.
Yet, based on the comments made by others re: Pacifico, the ‘liberal/progressive’ Davis neighbors would probably find a way to get the CC to enact an ordinance to prevent your charity/caring in their neighborhood, even if the legal concerns you cite were eliminated.
Bravo to you for at least considering personal action to help. I actually considered the same for a homeless guy I worked with for 12+ weeks… had I been the sole occupant of our house, probably would have done it. But, on occasion, all our kids are here, and we often have short term guests/friends… if not for the latter, pretty sure my spouse would have been open to it… with rules as to behavior and “chores” to the extent that he needed to take care of himself and his housing environment (our home). And staying “clean” both as to drugs and hygiene…
I seldom see your posts as “spot on”, but on this topic I do.
Edgar, I support your willingness to make such a heavy personal financial assist. I would also observe that your willingness to reach into your own pocket like this indicates that you accept the obligation of contributing something of value toward a solution. You would have to add to your list screening by the appropriate public agency for a person with mental illness or other similar disabilities such as PTSD that could manifest intermittently and make it difficult or even dangerous to share your space. Also, how to pay for modifications to your home for people with physical disabilities that happen before or even after they come to live in your home. You’d need legal protection there also. I’m sure there are other similar issues hiding out there.
I am not ready to take people with addictions, mental illnesses or PTSD etc, or to make any modification to accommodate disability. I don’t have experience dealing with those people. Basically the screening process for me is the same, but if the applicant is refered by the police, that they are homeless for a legitimate reason, then I might not charge rent and waive security deposit. If it was just a random person asking to reduce rent, they would have to some how convince me and that takes more time from both.
I am not trying to fix a system, just trying to say what I could do. Another person can do what they want and can do. There is no conflict.
The offer was just, given my conditions, is there a matching tenant that I could help? That is a question to Ryan.
This is different from me just giving Ryan a $6000 check. For those arguing that is would be better to just give him a check, they are free to do so.
I hope people can see that if we simply train people how to volunteer, we can short circuit the bureaucracy, get things done, and reduce waste. And what I ask for does not require some kind of city-wide vote or council meeting approval. But I care about my neighbors, so Dave could stop me.
Here, Edgar, I must somewhat disagree… you cannot “train” folk to volunteer time, talents, nor treasure. It either comes from example (my reality, with my parents), and or a spiritual ‘elan’… ya’ got it, or ya’ don’t.
Would be nice if government helped ‘enable’ volunteerism…
Spouse and I have that elan…
My point about training is mainly for people who already want to volunteer but don’t know how or how to do it safely. So I think we are taking about the same thing.
Dave wouldn’t stop you, but your point is well taken. We are all aware of opposition to ‘half-way’ houses and other residences dedicated to housing people with difficult issues. I really do think there is merit to what you have proposed for maybe 10% of the homeless population. It wouldn’t fix the whole problem but it would go toward whittling it down. No matter what, it would also require tax-supported agency time to do the background checks for not only criminal activity, but mental health issues, gun ownership and many other factors that could complicate your life.